W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: ISSUE-130 / ACTION-194 Come up with a proposal for conformance

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:12:54 -0400
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <10464.1220447574@ubuhebe>


> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> >>
> >> * 1.2.1
> >>
> >>   """
> >>   An OWL 2 RL entailment checker
> >>   [...] MUST return True only when O1 entails O2,
> >>   and it must return False
> >>   only when FO(O1) ? R does not entail FO(O2)
> >>   under the standard first-order semantics
> >>   """
> >>
> 
> This is again a naming issue, a bit like Michael's question on how to
> refer to RDF vs. model theoretical semantics. But what exactly do we
> mean here by 'standard first order semantics'? I have an idea, for sure,
> but we may have to at least put a clear reference here... (RIF?)

Yeah, I hope we can transition the rules to being written in RIF and
just use a RIF reference.   Someone needs to do that work, though.

       -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 13:14:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC